The key discussion points and takeaways from our discussion on ThoughtCounter project development, the forthcoming March exhibition, and the challenges of quantifying thoughts.
1. Challenges of quantifying thoughts
Jonathan challenged whether I’m using the wrong tool for the wrong job – can something fundamentally subjective like thought be captured in data:
“Is there a danger… that what we’re dealing with here can’t be quantified in data?”
My response was – that’s exactly the point.
People will realise their thoughts are appearing and disappearing constantly, coming from nowhere. Counting thoughts is a near impossible task that will fail to produce conclusive results – but that failure reveals the true nature of thought.
Jonathan summarised it nicely: “The project itself is a parody of itself in that it can’t measure this… can’t be captured in data.”
2. Framing & user experience
We discussed different approaches for introducing the exercise:
- Direct approach: “How many thoughts do you have in 60 seconds? Go.”
- Contextualised: “Research claims 6,000-60,000 thoughts/day – help us create the largest dataset”
- Minimal: Simple guidance with an “About” page for deeper context
Jonathan made a really good point that, “every approach carries its own baggage.” If I state numbers upfront people may subconsciously feel the need to perform to those numbers – “I need to have lots of thoughts.” Or if I provide too much context and there’s a chance of influencing the experience before it begins.
Jonathan highlighted a point I made in a recent blog post covering my visit to Matrimandir. What stood out was there was no prerequisite. It was free to enter, a unique space for concentration, but it doesn’t try to convert you to anything.
Key takeaway: Based on this conversation, I’ll keep the framing open and not explain too much upfront, as the user’s experience matters more than the data/measurement.
3. Experience rather than data
Jonathan reframed the entire project with one question:
“Its purpose is to gather a whole load of experience. If you call it experience rather than a data set – does that change it?”
Yes, completely. And a really good point.
It’s actually more aligned with the objective: a whole load of experience of putting attention or awareness on our thoughts. The “Data” was a route to get people engaged.
The beauty is that a million people could get a million different experiences. It’s about both individual experience and the collective/shared experiences.
Key takeaway: In a research context, “data set” language might still be strategically useful, but the core purpose is experiential, not data. And I need to be transparent about this.
4. Physical objects?
Jonathan referenced my early sketches including the Starck juicer aesthetic and introduced the idea of visitors choosing from a table of different handheld objects before entering the exhibition space. Whether it technically works is irrelevant.
“It does something. It’s sensory. It does something to our bodies… just like walking up to the Matrimandir- that’s the whole point of grand architecture, of cathedrals. It’s all been considered to have this bodily effect on us, even though technically it might not be doing anything that could be measured, but it is doing a whole load of stuff.”
5. “Behaviours of work” & exhibition strategy
Continuing on from the physical object idea, Jonathan talked about “behaviours of work”. Imagine research as a “buzzing, fizzing ball of energy” with different behaviours radiating from it – a website, print, installation, screen – all legitimate expressions, none right or wrong.
Key points for the March exhibition:
- Opening night could be different from the unattended period over the weekend
- Screens available (32-50 inch)
- Could be marketing/billboard approach driving to website
- Or it could be using ThoughtCounter in situ
Key takeaway: Avoid “audience as paintbrush” – shallow interactivity where participation feels meaningless.
6. Strategic thinking
For the exhibition, Jonathan suggested to think about what’s achievable in next few weeks and what’s strategically useful for me right now.
I see this as an MVP/starting point: “loads of ways it can go, not just thoughts… all the other perceptions we have – sensory, feelings, emotions. That’s really what I’m excited about.”
Book to reference: Nora Bateson, Combining. Concept of “warm data,” emphasising the interconnectedness of everything and the limitations of quantitative research